Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas

[edit]
(
)

Judge James W. Robinson, Texas Supreme Court

Created by GregJackP (talk). Self nominated at 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC).
Alt1 ... that the first six judges selected for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas never sat at a session of the Court?

  • The article was created within 5 days of its nomination, it is well over 1500 characters long. It is well-written and inline sourced. All statements are sourced. I could find no copyright violations or close paraphrasing. The hook is less than 200 words, it is in the article (a little hard to find) and sourced. The hook is interesting in the context of the article. The problem is the image is not in the article though he appears to be mentioned. I am One of Many (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I had meant to add it, but guess I forgot. I fixed it, and it's in the article now, in the "Sessions" section. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that the image is in the article, it is good to go. I am One of Many (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the hook is supported by the article; if it is, it isn't expressly stated. What the article says in the District judges section is that the first four elected district judges (who were also associate justices) didn't serve on the supreme court (though they presumably did their district judging), along with the first two chief justices. However, the second of these chief justices, Birdsall, was appointed by Houston in 1838, but his appointment wasn't ratified by the Texas congress, so he was never "elected". (The others were all "elected" by congress.) Two more elections occurred in 1838: Rusk, the third chief justice, and the first who did serve, and Branch, who was the first district judge for the fifth district, but doesn't appear to have served on the supreme court. If Branch was elected first, then you have your sixth, but the fact would need to be sourced in the article; if Rusk was first, then you don't. It seems safest for the hook to be modified to "first five", since none of the five 1836 ones, all of whom were elected, ended up serving. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Reworded, see Alt1 hook. GregJackP Boomer! 07:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP, I'm not sure this does the trick. The inline sourcing only supports the first four districts and the first two chiefs, but the first chief (Collinsworth) died in June 1838 according to your article (but see below) and the enabling legislation for the fifth district was during the previous month. There's nothing in here that clearly establishes the appointment of Birdsall as chief as coming prior to that of Branch in the fifth district, and the five 1836 appointments were made very quickly indeed after the December enabling acts. If you don't have the actual dates, then six still isn't safe even as selected. Absent any changes in the article that supply more sourced information, the best you can safely say is five elected. Also, a couple of online sources give Collinsworth's death as July 1938; this one gives July 11, and also says he became chief justice on December 16, 1836, which is the day after the enabling legislation. This source gives Birdsall's appointment as August 10, 1838. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The inline sourcing only supports the first four districts and the first two chiefs. That's all that is required. I'm not going to jump through anal retentive hoops for a DYK. So either fail it or pass it, but I'm not going to do more on this. You've already stated the sourcing supports the DYK hook. GregJackP Boomer! 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I stated no such thing. The sourcing supports the two facts separately: four districts didn't sit, and the first two chiefs didn't sit. It says nothing about them as a group being the first six, and to say that it does is WP:SYNTH. In fact, if the second chief came after the fifth district—which seems likely given a Birdsall appointment as chief in August and the fifth district being created nearly three months earlier in May, though none of the sources I found nailed it down either way—then both of your hooks are false, and the article and sourcing does not address this at all. It's up to you: I could accept the following ALT2:
If you aren't willing to go with that hook, I'll close this right now. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The inline sourcing only supports the first four districts and the first two chiefs. Yes, you did state that, exactly. Look at the second sentence of your post at 04:25. So either your statement at 04:25 is true or your statement of 17:02 is true, but both cannot be true. If, AGF, you misspoke, fine, but you stated that the sourcing supported the hook. I am not going to play games over this with you, but think that an admin should look at this since you are adding arbitrary requirements that are not required. Should you close this yourself, I'll take it further. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You said You've already stated the sourcing supports the DYK hook, but that is a clear misreading of my own words. My original statement (which you've quoted twice now) was in reference to your own article, which reads: Due to delays in the Supreme Court sitting in session, these four judges (along with the first two chief justices) never sat with the Supreme Court. This sentence (and mine, for that matter) is not same as saying that these four district judges and the first two chief justices, none of whom actually sat, were the first six elected or selected justices. It just isn't. If you can't understand why, then by all means bring in your admin. I expect you'll be in for a rude shock when you do. This is not a game—what I think is that you've made some assumptions and connections that are simply not warranted based on the facts you've presented and the sources you've referenced, and your hooks are not currently supported as DYK requires. I notice you haven't addressed either of my points—about the timing of Branch's appointment vs. Collinsworth's death and what it would mean for the accuracy of both of your hooks—and I'm frankly disappointed: accuracy should be the foremost concern here. I'm not adding "arbitrary" requirements, just enforcing the standard ones that hook facts must be clearly supported, and these are not with the current sourcing.
In fact, as I'm typing this, I realize that my hook isn't any good either, so I'm striking it. The reason: it's never explicitly stated in the article. If you want to use any of these hooks, then the article has to make an explicit statement that the first five or six were elected or selected or whatever is actually the case (but only what can be supported). See WP:DYK under the Eligibility criteria, number 3 (Cited hook). BlueMoonset (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If the source is not explicit about the six sitting together, the hook should not be based around such a claim. As Blue says, that is part of the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The source is explicit. See James W. Paulsen, A Short History of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas 65 Tex. L. Rev. 240, 248-53 (1986). I'm just not going to spend a lot of time dealing with anal retentive editors. The hook had been reviewed and was "good to go" according to the editor that reviewed it. I have an article at FAC and several articles undergoing GAN right now, all of which are more deserving of my attention than this BS. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You're saying the source is explicit (as in explicitly specified in the citation?), but the article is not, and indeed your original hook was, as you tacitly admitted when you reworded to make ALT1, wrong. The original editor who reviewed it missed that and some other points, unfortunately—indeed, even if the hook had been supported by the article text (it still isn't, since "first six [s]elected" is nowhere in the text—at best this should have been given an AGF tick because none of the sources are online except FN46 and FN47, neither of which is the Paulsen. (If the Paulsen had been available on line, I'd have checked it and made the necessary adjustments myself.) Since you're completely unwilling to address the issues raised here (including by an admin), there are no valid hooks supported by the article, and you're uninterested in fixing the article or supplying an alternate hook, I see no point in leaving this nomination open another hour. Have fun at GAN and FAC. Regards, BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I struck or reverted your close. As I mentioned above, I would prefer that an admin look at this, rather than someone who is adding unnecessary requirements. GregJackP Boomer! 14:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You are perhaps unaware that Crisco 1492 is an admin, and one who has more experience at DYK than I do. You have already had your admin, and he pointed out a basic flaw, that the article itself does not make the assertion in the hooks above. As you had basically refused to take any more action here, and there is still no valid hook, I set it to be closed, though I'm leaving it to another reviewer (who may well be another admin) to do the actual rejection step, so there's one more set of eyes checking this before the end. I frankly think it's a shame that this article won't be appearing—it's why I spent time looking for online sourcing that might support the "six" assertion, only to discover material that cast doubt on it—but since you're unwilling to meet the requirements as they actually are, the nomination can't be accepted for the main page. I have reinstated my icon; please do not strike it again. You can always go to the DYK talk page to appeal this further. Or you could come up with a new hook: lots of interesting possibilities for a court that was formed and had five judges appointed/elected to it in 1836, but didn't sit until 1840, by which point none of those five were still serving. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware he is, but you are not, and he did not state that the hook did not meet the requirements, he said If the source is not explicit.... That's considerably different from what you are saying. Second, it's not my problem that you don't have access to Paulsen. I could also give a flying F whether you think it's a "shame" or not, I don't trust your judgment on this. If an admin wants to talk to me about the source, I'm happy to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
As it says on WP:DYK in the hook content section, The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. Many submissions fail to meet one or both of these criteria. At the moment, "first six judges" isn't anywhere in the article (no, first four judges plus first two chief justices does not equal or support first six judges). If the source is explicit but the article is not, you haven't met DYK hook standards. At this point, it's up to you to make good; if you want this to proceed without changing article or hook (and I honestly don't understand why you refuse), you'll need to go to WT:DYK. What date does Paulsen give for Branch's appointment? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you go screw with another article? You're not needed here. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Crisco 1492, I can live with that. Good suggestion and I appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT3 needs a new review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked over the page and did some copyediting to clean up the grammar, fill in missing words, and improve the reference formatting (the latter was hard to follow, as in several places, different sources were grouped into one footnote). I would appreciate the page creator looking it over to make sure I didn't accidentally delete a footnote or something. In particular, look at the second paragraph under Chief Justices, where a template direction is showing in the text, and I put a tag on the following sentence.
  • I like Crisco's hook. Offline hook refs AGF. However, I would word it this way:
  • ALT4: ... that the first session of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas took place more than three years after the court was established? Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I can live with either Alt3 or Alt4. I had to completely undo the changes that you made to the references. The Bluebook style uses string cites instead of multiple citations. I appreciate your efforts, but the material was cited properly according to that style. I fixed the omissions at the other two locations (Chief Justice and Sessions). GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
for ALT3 (preferred as simpler) or ALT4, offline sources accepted AGF. No picture, no need to single out one person in court. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Supreme_Court_of_the_Republic_of_Texas&oldid=808309996"